Lord Borrie: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the Press Complaints Commission has a very powerful and independent chairman in Sir Christopher Meyer, a well-known former ambassador who is indeed very independent? He has increased the number of independent members of the commission and the description of it as a paper tiger by the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, is a long way from the truth. Does my noble friend also agree that while it may well be meritorious for the commission from time to time to initiate inquiries on its own rather than waiting for complaints, it would be wholly unmeritorious for the Government to take the initiative as suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Taverne? That would be a gross interference with the freedom of the press and set a very bad precedent for some Minister in some future government to intervene in other ways?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, needs advice from the Government Front Bench on the strategy he should pursue, but what he has done this afternoon is draw attention to an important issue. The Press Complaints Commission undertakes inquiries from sources of complaint, but inevitably the weight of its work relates to people who complain directly when they are involved. I am sure we all agree that that should be so.

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, that there is a perception that some of the money has not been well spent. The Disasters Emergency Committee is well aware of that. It is working on a strategy to address the issue of communicating with the public. I understand that on the six-month anniversary of the tsunami it will be reporting on progress in development in the regions. It is talking about spending some £152 million of the money allocated in the first year.
	There is an issue of accountability. The Disasters Emergency Committee is well aware of that and I am sure that it will address it as part of its strategy.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, as part of the Government's road safety strategy, the Department for Transport has considered whether a passenger restriction should apply to newly qualified drivers. The Secretary of State concluded that this would prevent such drivers from providing a means of transport for other family members and taking on the role of non-drinking driver, and that it would encourage more car journeys and curtail the social and other activities of some young people, particularly in rural areas.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, speaking as an Australian, I am of course well aware of the significant part played there by the random alcohol assessment of drivers. However, is the Minister aware that newly qualified drivers in Australia carry not an "R" but a "P" as a provisional plate? Northern Ireland uses the first and Australia the latter. We have debated this issue before. I have tabled amendments on it—it must be close to 20 years ago—which were debated in this House and were fully and strongly supported by the police in Northern Ireland, which has experience in the matter.
	The Minister is right that unless the police can identify the drivers in question, they cannot enforce anything. That is why the plates are an important indicator. But is he aware that one of the restrictions on young drivers in Australia is a very much lower alcohol level? That is highly significant. The road situation in Australia is different because the speed limits are high and the roads are open and wide. It is time that we too looked at special restrictions for newer drivers. Another point brought out in debate is that newer drivers are sometimes intimidated by those coming up from behind them. So such restrictions may also help them.

Lord Addington: My Lords, if the Government accept that the tax credit is designed to help those on low incomes, do they have some special scheme or mechanism to help those on comparatively low incomes to repay sums of approximately £1,000? What are they doing to help in that regard? Surely those are people who are being hurt by a system that is supposed to help them.

Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I beg to move the three Motions standing in my name on the Order Paper.
	Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform
	Moved, That a Select Committee be appointed to report whether the provisions of any Bill inappropriately delegate legislative power, or whether they subject the exercise of legislative power to an inappropriate degree of parliamentary scrutiny; to report on documents and draft orders laid before Parliament under the Regulatory Reform Act 2001; and to perform, in respect of such documents and orders and subordinate provisions orders laid under that Act, the functions performed in respect of other instruments by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments;
	That, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following Lords be named of the committee:
	L. Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L. Dahrendorf (Chairman), L. Garden, B. Gardner of Parkes, L. Harrison, L. McIntosh of Haringey, B. Scott of Needham Market, L. Shaw of Northstead, L. Temple-Morris;
	That the Committee have power to adjourn from place to place within the United Kingdom;
	That the Committee have power to appoint specialist advisers.
	Liaison Committee
	Moved, That a Select Committee be appointed to advise the House on the resources required for Select Committee work and to allocate resources between Select Committees; to review the Select Committee work of the House; to consider requests for ad hoc committees and report to the House with recommendations; to ensure effective co-ordination between the two Houses; and to consider the availability of Lords to serve on committees;
	That, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following Lords together with the Chairman of Committees be named of the committee:
	B. Amos (Lord President), L. Geddes, B. Hayman, L. Kimball B. McIntosh of Hudnall, L. McNally, L. Moser, B. Scott of Needham Market, L. Strathclyde, L. Williamson of Horton;
	That the committee have leave to report from time to time;
	That the committee have power to appoint specialist advisers.
	Parliamentary Broadcasting Unit Limited (PARBUL)
	That, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following Lords be named as members of the Parliamentary Broadcasting Unit Limited (PARBUL):
	L. Brabazon of Tara, L. Naseby, L. Paul,L. Thomson of Monifieth.—(The Chairman of Committees.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
	The United Kingdom has one of the best road safety records in the world. It is a record we can rightly be proud of. The Government are working to improve that record still further. We launched our Road Safety Strategy in 2000, and reviewed it last year. Our aim is to reduce deaths and serious injuries by 40 per cent by 2010, and by 50 per cent among children, against the baseline of average casualties over 1994 to 1998. We have made good progress. The latest figures, for 2004, show that the number of people killed or seriously injured had fallen by 28 per cent compared with the baseline; that is 10,000 fewer injuries every year, halfway towards our target. The number of children killed or seriously injured has dropped by 41 per cent—over three-quarters of the way towards the 50 per cent reduction target for children.
	But 3,500 people still die on our roads each year—that is, 10 deaths every day. There are still over 4,000 children a year killed or seriously injured. That is why the Government have introduced the Road Safety Bill, which contains a range of measures aimed at reducing the number of deaths and injuries and making our roads safer. It will make an important contribution to meeting the Government's targets in 2010.
	Road accidents are caused by a very wide range of factors. Road safety calls for action across many fronts, and the range is clear in our Road Safety Strategy. It includes issues from drink driving to training standards; seat belt wearing, which is simple but as important as ever; the Think! information and advertising programme; safety cameras; and proper mobile phone use.
	The year 2005 has seen a number of key developments in road safety. The first fully-fledged National Motorcycling Strategy was published in February. In January, Ministers from the Department for Transport and the Home Office issued a Roads Policing Strategy jointly with the Association of Chief Police Officers. That reaffirmed the shared commitment to a highly visible police presence on the roads, and identified four particular dimensions of unlawful, disorderly and dangerous use of roads and vehicles, namely: drink and drug driving; speeding; failure to use seat belts; and driving which is dangerous, careless or threatening to other road users. Finally, the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act was given Royal Assent in April. It brought in measures to combat uninsured driving, as well as enabling the police to undertake evidential breath-tests at the roadside. The Road Safety Bill will continue in that wide-ranging approach. It will cover many different issues from dealing with vehicle fraud to ensuring that penalties for road traffic offences are effective, proportionate and fair.
	Research surveys show that nearly everyone thinks that they are a better than average driver. That is not possible and it is not true. Behaviour is a key factor in as many as half of all car fatalities. It is essential that we send a clear message to those who commit driving offences, particularly in the case of severe or repeat offences.
	The Bill increases penalties for careless and inconsiderate driving, for using a hand-held mobile phone while driving, for failing to have proper control of a vehicle, and for repeat offences of using a vehicle in a dangerous condition.
	Nowhere is the impact of driver behaviour more apparent than where drivers speed. Excessive speed contributes to nearly 30 per cent of fatalities, more than 1,000 deaths each year. It is a factor in another 40,000 more injuries. Research tells us that the greatest reduction in these casualties would come from reducing the speed of those who break the speed limits most seriously.
	Penalties need to reflect this. The Bill provides for graduated fixed penalty points for various offences, including speeding. These will be more effective, proportionate and fair, helping motorists to understand the dangers of excessive speed and encouraging them to respect the law.
	This will allow tougher punishment for those who speed the most seriously, as well as scope for lesser penalties for less severe speeding. This will help ensure that speeding law and penalties command public support.
	The Bill sets out the enabling powers for graduated fixed penalty points. It provides that there will be formal consultation to help determine the detailed proposals, which will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure and debate in Parliament.
	However, the law is not the only solution. Several police forces offer "low-end speeders" the option of going on speed awareness courses, at their own expense, where this looks to be a more effective way to help them to drive more carefully and considerately. The Association of Chief Police Officers is putting in place a national programme of awareness courses. The Government welcome this police initiative.
	An independent report last year showed a 32 per cent drop in speeding and a 40 per cent reduction in deaths and serious injuries at safety camera sites. However, devices that detect or jam speed assessment equipment can remove the need for drivers to watch their speed. They threaten to reverse the gains that we have made recently and to make other police speed enforcement procedures useless. The Bill will enable the fitting and use of these devices to be prohibited by means of regulations.
	In addition to these measures, we propose: re-training courses as a "court disposal" for the more serious speed offenders, based on the successful Drink-Drive Rehabilitation Scheme—they will also extend to careless driving offenders—raising the penalty for failing to identify the driver to six penalty points; and clarifying the law on speed exemptions and associated training requirements.
	We have made great strides in tackling drink driving over the past two decades through a combination of powerful information campaigns and police enforcement. There has been a real change in Britain's culture when it comes to drinking and driving. Yet alcohol is still a factor in about one in seven of all fatal crashes. It is responsible for more than 500 deaths a year on the roads.
	Up to 20 per cent of drink-drive convictions are repeat offenders. Statistics of road accidents indicate that younger, predominantly male drivers are the ones more likely to be under the influence of alcohol.
	The Bill will allow us to make repeat drink-drive offenders retake their driving test. It will ensure that repeat offenders are kept from driving until they have completed the necessary medical examination. It also enables the future use of alcohol ignition interlocks which have been shown to be very effective in discouraging re-offending.
	The Bill will also allow unlicensed and non-GB licence holders to be given fixed penalties in respect of endorsable road traffic offences. In addition, the Bill will enable police and enforcement officers to require offenders who cannot supply a satisfactory UK address to pay an immediate deposit in lieu of a fixed penalty, or pending a court hearing. This would prevent drivers who leave the country before payment of a fixed penalty is due escaping punishment, as can happen all too easily now.
	Since the launch of continuous vehicle registration in 2004, vehicle licence evasion has dropped to 3.4 per cent, from 4.8 per cent in 2002. We aim to reduce this number to 2.5 per cent by 2007. However, unlicensed vehicles are still a problem. They may slip off the record and be used in vehicle fraud or other criminal activity.
	The Bill extends the regulation of registration plate suppliers to Scotland and Northern Ireland. It enables us to share driver and vehicle data with foreign authorities. These measures will help the fight against cross-border vehicle crime and vehicle-related fraud and make it harder for vehicles to slip off the record. In addition, the Bill will enable us to require the surrender of paper driving licences, which will be replaced by photocard driving licences. This will improve the security of the licence held by all drivers and overcome the fraudulent use of the paper licence.
	The Bill will also enable us to require vehicle mileages to be reported to the DVLA. This will help to combat the fraudulent practice of "clocking" vehicles—that means reducing the number of miles shown on the clock to make the vehicle more attractive when it is resold.
	One of the most important elements of our Road Safety Strategy is to improve people's awareness on the roads so that fewer accidents happen in the first place. We are working towards this goal for drivers, motorcyclists and pedestrians as well as driving instructors.
	We have introduced advanced learning packages for these groups, such as the Pass Plus post-test driving scheme for newly-qualified drivers and the Arrive Alive road safety awareness course for young people. We have also brought in the hazard perception test for driving instructors. These are supported by the Think! road safety advertising campaign. It is a fact that young and newly qualified drivers have a higher risk of collisions than older and more experienced drivers, as we discussed at Question Time earlier this afternoon.
	The Bill will put in place measures to provide higher standards for professional driving instructors. It will improve the regulation of driving schools, including not just the instructors themselves but also those involved in running a driving instruction business or franchise.
	In addition, the Bill will enable the registration of instructors for vehicles other than cars. Currently instruction for these vehicles is unregulated and standards vary widely as a result. In addition, the Bill will introduce a power to impose higher-quality training for driving instructors, while recognising that some will come to the job with vast existing experience. The Bill will also enable the publication of information about the performance of registered driving instructors, allowing learner drivers to make a more informed choice of instructor.
	The Bill will help to ensure that drivers and riders of all types of motor vehicles are trained to a high standard according to the demands of today's road conditions.
	"Tiredness kills"—an estimated 300 people each year are killed where a driver has fallen asleep at the wheel. The Government's message to drivers is "Take a break". The Bill will enable the building of motorway picnic areas to enable drivers to do just that.
	The Bill will also contain measures to provide inspectors with additional investigative powers to ensure the safe transport of radioactive material; to improve the licensing arrangements for London private hire vehicles; and to bring in inspection and certification of vehicles modified to run on fuel stored under pressure.
	Finally, casualty statistics show how important local action is with a big margin between the police force areas that are doing best and some areas where casualties have actually increased since the baseline was established. The Government are supporting local action through demonstration projects, working with local authorities to develop and demonstrate good practice, and through transport funding. In order to encourage new and innovative local road safety schemes, the Bill will allow the Government to pay specific grants to local authorities that are bringing ground-breaking new measures to promote road safety.
	In conclusion, the Bill will help to create a safer environment for all road users. It takes a wide-ranging approach to road safety, tackling each of the issues with specific measures. I commend the Bill to the House.
	Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Davies of Oldham.)

Lord Hanningfield: My Lords, I welcome this opportunity to speak from these Benches on this important and timely Bill. First, let me state that any measures to reduce both danger and casualties on our roads are to be welcomed. We all share the same objective of improving road safety, and relatively small differences exist in relation to the means of achieving that objective. Regrettably, the need for such legislation is all too apparent.
	It is perhaps worth reminding ourselves, as the Minister said, of the true scale of the problem facing us on British roads. The fact remains that there are still 10 deaths each day on our roads. The Department for Transport's own figures show that 3,508 people were killed on Britain's roads in 2003; that is 2 per cent more than in 2002. The number of people seriously injured was 33,707; while total casualties for 2003 amounted to an alarming 290,607. Provisional estimates also indicate that the number of deaths in accidents involving drink driving was 2 per cent higher than in 2002. The Minister commented particularly on that. Of course, we cannot put a figure on the trauma, distress and difficulties that such a loss or serious injury causes families and others.
	Were that the situation for any other mode of transport, there would be a public scandal. We can certainly do much to tackle those appalling figures. A number of measures can and should be introduced, including many that are in the Bill. However, as I shall explain, there are some serious omissions. We are happy to give the Bill our support on Second Reading, and we will give it a general and broad support in Committee. I hope that some of our suggestions might be taken on board at that stage.
	We can support a number of measures in the Bill, including the proposal to increase maximum penalties for various road traffic offences and the introduction of a graduated fixed penalty scheme for various roadworthiness and other offences that will match the punishment to the severity of the offence. On this issue, the Government have adopted Conservative Party policy, which is to be welcomed. The range of penalty points that can be imposed for speeding offences is a good idea, and I am glad that the Government have seen the light. In fact, I would have two points instead of six had the scheme been brought in earlier. I declare an interest there.
	We also support the new measures designed to improve the enforcement of existing road traffic legislation. The Bill gives police the power to detect uninsured driving through the use of automatic number plate-reading technology and confers new enforcement powers on vehicle examiners. Again, we support any attempt to crack down on the menace that is uninsured drivers. We are happy to see driving tests made more flexible, with new powers to deal with impostors taking other people's driving tests. After our discussion at Question Time this afternoon, I was pleased to hear the Minister say that driving tests were important. It will be interesting to hear whether he has any further thoughts about how to improve the quality and standard of driving tests. Provision is to be made to prevent foreign drivers escaping punishment in the UK by requiring them to pay a deposit where an offence is committed, which is welcome. Therefore, as I have tried briefly to outline, we are happy to lend our support to a range of proposals. My noble friends on these Benches will highlight and discuss specific measures in a little more detail during the course of the debate.
	However, there are other points that could have been included in this Bill. The opportunity to pass primary legislation on road safety is rare. Current trends of rising traffic levels, casualties and significant intimidation from speeding traffic means that the title of the Government's road safety strategy—Tomorrow's roads: safer for everyone—regrettably rings hollow for many. In short, we have before us today something of a missed opportunity. Where, for instance, is the requirement on the relevant authorities, the Highways Agency and others, to assess what steps could be taken to reduce accident rates on roads classified as high-risk, marked in black on the AA EuroRAP map?
	Where, for instance, are greater powers for the police to give evidence against drug drivers? We have legislation for drink but nothing particularly for drugs. Where, for instance, are the measures to cut speeding and accidents on country roads and lanes? Can we have a more sensible and practical approach to the rather vexed issue of speed cameras? There seem to be different regulations in use around the country. Indeed, while the Government are introducing a more flexible approach to penalties for speeding, many motorists would still be unduly and harshly penalised by the broad-brush approach to speed cameras at the expense of experienced road traffic professionals.
	We have concerns regarding the safety camera partnerships, about their role and how they are funded. If the speed cameras were operated by traffic police, it is more likely that they would be situated where they could genuinely prevent accidents. It would also mean that a higher proportion of the money paid in fines could be used by the traffic police to promote road safety.
	On a related issue, the Bill effectively outlaws devices that detect the presence of equipment used to assess the speed of motor vehicles and other devices that jam that equipment. I draw a distinction between those two types of device, and I have no objection to the proposed measures against the devices that jam. However, devices that detect the presence of speed equipment belong to a different category. If the Government believe their claims that speed cameras are sited so that they slow down traffic in places where accidents are likely to occur, it is clearly helpful for drivers to have advance warning of them, as they will then approach the high-risk sections of road at a moderate speed. The only reason to outlaw detection devices is that the number of drivers who might get caught for speeding would be reduced, with the result that the revenue generated by speed cameras would be reduced. I have no doubt that we shall return to the issue of speed cameras in Committee, but I would be grateful if perhaps the Minister could comment on whether the Government have thought again on this issue; from the contents of this Bill I wonder if they have.
	Given the good safety record of many motorways and trunk roads, with fewer accidents on motorways, it is surely time to consider raising the upper limit to 80 mph in certain places. Indeed, we on these Benches believe that the speed limit can safely be raised on motorways, but in other areas such as roads near schools, hospitals and parks, the maximum should be lowered to 20 mph, particularly when children are about. The limit on motorways was set decades ago when cars were less safe than they now are and when roads were less well designed. Motorways are our safest roads; road design and car design have improved over the decades since the 70 mph limit was first introduced. Research from Europe shows that where the speed limit on such roads is higher there is no corresponding increase in the accident rate. It is time that the Government moved into the 21st century and understood the realities of modern motorway driving. Again, I would be pleased to hear the Minister's thoughts on that.
	There is no logical reason why the provisions of Clause 21 on the use of hand-held mobile phones should not apply to cyclists as well as to motorists. Will the Minister comment on that? Furthermore, where is the proposal championed by the British Red Cross to include first aid as part of the practical driving test? That relates to my comments that we should perhaps rethink the driving test. Some 57 per cent of deaths caused by road accidents happen in the first few minutes after a crash, before the emergency services arrive. The Red Cross believes that up to 85 per cent of those could be prevented if first aid were administered immediately. Incorporating basic first aid training as part of the driving test is a sensible step forward that would add little burden or cost to the test and add considerably to safety. I hope that the Minister can give us some positive news on that measure, as I give notice today of our intention to bring forward amendments in Committee on this issue.
	Equally, there is much merit in the proposal for car occupants to wear retro-reflective jackets when they leave their cars at the roadside—for example, in the event of a breakdown or accident. We often hear of people killed as they get out of their cars when they break down. Similar measures have already been implemented in Italy, Spain, Austria and Portugal. When this issue was discussed in another place, the Minister said that the Government would consider such a scheme. Again, I hope that the noble Lord can provide us with some better news on the Government's current thinking on this issue.
	There are a number of other areas where we believe that we could improve the Bill to take account of modern road conditions and behaviour. Increasing speed limits from 40 mph to 50 mph for heavy goods vehicles on single carriageway roads would cut congestion and the temptation for motorists to risk a dangerous overtaking manoeuvre. Motorcycles should be allowed to use bus lanes. I was pleased to hear the Minister say that local authorities could take their own initiatives.
	As noble Lords will know, I am Leader of Essex County Council. The particular problem in Essex is people over 40 returning to the use of motorcycles. They have suddenly prospered in their later years but think that they are still 20. Many men are buying fast motorcycles, they do not have the reflexes that they had when they were 20 and the heaviest death toll in Essex is now among men over 40 on motorcycles. We are now taking certain measures, including courses, to try to encourage safety in that area. No doubt we shall talk about that during the course of the Bill.
	Penalties for causing death by dangerous driving and for driving while under the influence of illegal drugs need to be strengthened. We also believe that we need more police enforcement of our road traffic laws. Road traffic law enforcement is not included in the core responsibilities of chief constables—that issue was recently investigated by the Select Committee. We are also concerned over the decline in the number of dedicated traffic police. Figures obtained from the Government earlier this year showed a drop of nearly 3,000 traffic officers since 1997—a quarter of the total. Regrettably, we are seeing more and more technology, notably speed cameras, take the place of dedicated traffic police. If the Government are properly to bring in new road safety legislation, it can be enforced effectively only if there are sufficient traffic police, and the dramatic decline in their numbers should not continue.
	The Bill can be improved and we shall seek those improvements in Committee. The Bill falls short of being a comprehensive strategy. We support the endeavours behind the Bill and we shall do all that we can, in co-operation with the Government and other parties, to adopt a pragmatic, commonsense approach to these important issues—to restore a downward trend in the number of people killed and injured on our roads.

Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, we, too, welcome the Bill and will seek to give it God speed through the House. However, there are a number of issues that I shall draw to the attention of the Minister to which we may return in Committee, with or without the support of the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield.
	The first concerns seat belts. The Bill makes the use of a mobile telephone an endorseable offence. I have concerned myself with seat belts—I declare an interest as a member of the Thames Valley Police Authority—and caused some work to be done on the issue. In the past three years, 40 per cent of people killed in Thames Valley were front seat passengers, and 54 per cent of rear seat passengers were not wearing seat belts. Making the wearing of seat belts an endorseable offence is an obvious safety measure that is available to the Government. A car occupant is 25 times more likely to be killed if he is not wearing a seat belt. Unrestrained drivers and passengers are also a danger to other occupants.
	The current fine, a fixed penalty notice of £30, is derisory. Research by Professor Frank McKenna of Reading University on Thames Valley's speed awareness scheme, to which the Minister referred, has shown that the avoidance of penalty points is a major motivator. It revealed that 60 per cent of offenders went on a speed diversion course to avoid the fine and 85 per cent to avoid the points on their licences. Yet, although we have a scheme for seat belt diversion, only 10 per cent of people take it up. In fact, people are in contempt of the seat belt legislation and something needs to be done. I urge the Minister to include this matter within the Bill. As the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, said, such Bills do not come along often. It will probably be the only one that we will have in this Parliament.
	It is also an anomaly that people of 14 and 15 who are in rear seats, but do not wear seat belts, must be taken to court if the law is to be enforced, but the court has no effective penalty against them. The driver should be responsible for all passengers under 16 and Section 28 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 could apply. So, I ask that seat belts are made an important part of the Government's initiative. In Ireland, the wearing of seat belts is being made compulsory and it is ironic that we should follow that example. I have some awful photographs here of incidents where people wearing seat belts survived horrendous crashes, while those who were not wearing seat belts were killed in relatively minor crashes.
	I am sure that other noble Lords have received the same material as I have regarding my second point—that the conspicuousness of HGVs would be aided by the addition to the sides and edges of these vehicles of the retro-reflective material to which the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, referred in relation to jackets. This country is alone in Europe in not marking the sides and backs of vehicles, so that people driving clearly can see those in front of them.
	The next issue concerns the promotion of good driving. The Learning and Skills Council has a young drivers' scheme for drivers of passenger-carrying vehicles, under which 16 year-olds can be taught properly to drive and taught other areas of customer care, including looking after the disabled. It would be possible under this legislation to give the scheme recognition as the proper route into the passenger-carrying vehicle industry—the bus and coach industry. It is important, because the number of people coming forward to drive buses is small. We are bringing in people from abroad to do the job, because people here do not want to do it, and it needs to be invested with more status. I commend that idea to the Minister.
	The noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, referred to country roads, for which the Bill does nothing. Increasingly, county councils have made the speed on main roads 50 mph—I do not know whether that is the case in Essex, but in Oxfordshire, where I am a county councillor, many single carriageway main roads have a 50 mph limit. But it is an anomaly that if one turns into a country lane, which is often wide enough only for one vehicle, there is no speed limit and one may accelerate to 60 mph. More accidents take place in rural areas than on main roads—and the number is growing. There is a case both for a default limit of 30 mph through villages and, where a road has no central white line—where it is, effectively, a single carriageway—for a speed limit of 40 mph. When one turns off a road that has a 50 mph limit it makes no sense at all to be allowed to go faster on what is obviously a minor road. This is a serious problem.
	We have talked before about the problem of large vehicles using country roads. I suggest that the law could be amended so that if a large vehicle is on a country lane its driver should be required to produce to a police constable a waybill showing that he has to collect or deliver on that road. The nonsense of policemen following vehicles for miles to prove that they have had access—which is not followed because the police do not have time—should be replaced with a responsibility on the driver to prove to the police that he needs to have access.
	The noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, referred to drugs. They are a serious problem and the police are singularly ill equipped to deal with the increasing number of people who drive under the influence of drugs. Policemen are forced to rely on asking somebody who they suspect of being under the influence of drugs to touch the end of his nose or to put out his right arm before they can arrest him and take him to a police station where he can be tested for drugs. But there is no evidential test that can be applied at the roadside that shows a policeman that a driver has impaired ability and should not be driving. That is something that needs to be looked at.
	The introduction of an offence of causing injury by dangerous driving is something that ought to be considered. We have an offence of causing death by dangerous driving, but injuries can be grievous. I am not talking about someone who gets his arm bruised, but about people who are permanently injured as a result of an accident. That is something that could be included in any change in the law.
	We will join the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, in supporting the proposals of the British Red Cross and we will bring forward a number of matters in Committee. However, I have sketched out some of the matters to which we will give attention, and I particularly ask the Minister to give attention to the seatbelt issue. If the intention of the Government is to get injuries down and to get on track for the target that they hope to reach, this is one way in which we could see some improvement.
	Lastly, it is questionable whether picnic sites will be used as family picnic sites or whether they will become dumping grounds, places where lorries exchange loads and where all sorts of other unpleasant things happen. I hope that if picnic sites are introduced it will be done in a regulated way that ensures that they are proper rest sites.
	However, we will support the Bill and look forward to receiving it in Committee.

Viscount Tenby: My Lords, I welcome many of the proposals in the Road Safety Bill, although I regret that the opportunity presented by its appearance has not led to a raft of initiatives which in themselves might not amount to much, but which, taken together, could create a safer driving climate. Some of the provisions in the Bill touch on major matters, while others are largely of a technical nature and there is inevitably an element of tidying up about the Bill.
	I begin with speeding. I am not one of those in this House once described in a memorably witty phrase by the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester—who I see is in his place and who is due to speak after me—as being of the "poop poop tendency". Such noble Lords rail against the use of camera, which is a crusade much favoured by the tabloids. Indeed, I would go further than the present formula allows. I do not feel that the installation of cameras should rely on the somewhat callous and mechanistic formula of four deaths or serious injuries over a measured stretch of road over the past three years. It must be right to let common sense and local knowledge play a part as well.
	I speak as someone living in a village where the driving conditions are extremely hazardous. It is regularly used as a rat run, often at speeds greatly exceeding the limit. We are weary of the constant emphasis on urban speeding, and would welcome similar attention being given to villages where there should be far more blanket 20 mph speed limits.
	The move towards mobile cameras, while predictably creating bleats of anguish from those same quarters, is surely another essential element in this continual campaign. We all speed at one time or another. My interest in studying the speeding characteristics of motorists arises from having had some 25 years on the bench—I apologise to the House for not having declared an interest earlier as a magistrate now on the supplementary list.
	I am convinced that many motorists are completely unaware of limit signs because they are distracted for one reason or another. The situation is not helped by the reckless way in which we spray speeding zones around, often over comparatively short distances. I know of a road where over the distance of a mile the limit goes from 60 to 40 to 30 to 20 and back to 30. Some people will, and indeed do, argue that the limits are all there for a reason and, up to a point, that is undeniable. But if the lack of attention to which I have already referred is present in the driver, such confusion only makes matters worse.
	The fact is that much of our speed control policy dates from the time when someone carrying a red flag preceded the vehicle. Is there a possibility of an undertaking from the Government that over the next few years there will be a national review of speed limits to bring them into line with the 21st century, modern conditions and modern automobile technology?
	Over a period of about 20 years—and such social changes are inevitably gradual—a sea change has occurred in the way in which society views driving with excess alcohol. As our roads become ever more crowded, that kind of stigma must attach itself to unacceptable and persistent speeding as well. I think, in particular, not of the proverbial little old lady—even though, theoretically, she may inflict just as much damage—but of habitual, reckless and anti-social speeders who specifically, and with calculation, defy the law.
	All young men like speeding until they grow up. Unfortunately, some of them never do and are catered for not only by the motoring pages of respectable newspapers and magazines, some of which ought to know better, but also by some spine-chilling specialist publications that were referred to in a recent Question in another place. Examples cited were claims of going through the Hatfield Tunnel at 188 mph and of doing an estimated 140 mph in a quiet country lane near Bath that, according to the driver, would be kamikaze at a speed of 70 mph. We all cherish the freedom of the press, but I ask the Minister whether the Government would be happy with a publication that advocated housebreaking, described its virtues in detail and egged readers on to follow suit? Why has there been no prosecution? These people have admitted what they did and have bragged about it. What are the police doing about it?
	Finally on speeding, I shall make a point about the rigidity of electronic speed surveillance where, unlike the human intervention of the traffic policeman, no allowance can be made for driving conditions, circumstances and so on. There should be an agreed policy about discretion where the limit has been exceeded. If drivers are to be prosecuted for going 2 mph over the limit, as one chief constable has reportedly urged, there will be no allowance for faulty speedometers and I confidently predict a substantial increase in the number of minor shunts as drivers check the speedometer rather than the car in front of them.
	Speed is an important topic and it is one of the reasons why I welcome the graduated penalty points proposal. I also welcome the banning of speed detection devices and the speed limit exemptions for emergency service vehicles, though I have to admit that I have in my time been in a police car that exceeded the motorway limit for about 20 minutes when the only emergency was that we were late for a meeting.
	The increased provisions for the retraining of serious drink-driving offenders and the introduction of alco-locks are to be welcomed, but I remain concerned—I want to emphasise this point—that we are still failing to get to grips with the problem of those driving under the influence of drugs. I would welcome an assurance from the Minister that this is now a priority objective, particularly as recent newspaper reports suggest that the means to provide accurate roadside testing will soon become available.
	Making the offence of using a mobile phone while driving an endorsable matter is long overdue. Nothing is more infuriating than someone who says, "I told you so", but on this occasion I have to say it. Many of us knew that without the additional sanction of penalty points, some motorists will continue to take risks and ignore the law. I take the view that it is not holding an object that is the main distraction, but the holding of a conversation, perhaps with disturbing news or requiring considered thought, which provides a danger element. So I would include hands-free phones in the ban as well. I accept that that is not a popular position and in any case it would be almost impossible to enforce. Unenforced and unenforceable law is, by definition, bad law.
	I make a plea for the Government to share in the justifiable anxiety of the police about the practice of tailgating which has been identified as one of the principle causes of accidents on our roads. Driving without due care may not be a sufficiently effective way to stamp out that pernicious and dangerous habit, so the Government might think about bringing in a specific offence.
	If the regulations proposed for the supervision and regulation of number plate suppliers are what I take them to mean, a tightening-up exercise is welcome news indeed. Time was—a long time ago now it seems—when the slightest deviation from the prescribed formula was jumped upon, but nowadays tolerance seems to be stretched to its limits and some number plates are almost unreadable, even at close quarters. Personal vanity on the one hand and so-called humour on the other are poor ingredients for legibility and identification.
	I also add my voice to that of other noble Lords on introducing a Red Cross course for first-time drivers. I think that makes it a straight flush and perhaps the Minister will, accordingly, take note of that.
	Another area that the Government might have looked at concerns road signs. Quite apart from the inordinate amount of time that it appears to take to repair roads in this country, in my experience, frequently signs are not removed immediately a job has been completed. Similarly, on motorways, for example, ad hoc speed restrictions for early-morning mist sometimes remain on long after the danger has passed, presumably because someone has forgotten to switch them off. It does not require Einstein to realise that irrelevant signs will come to be disregarded, with all the dangers that that implies when they refer to a real hazard. Accordingly, some kind of penalty system should be in place to ensure that tidying up is done as a matter of course. If the Government claim that such a provision is already in place via other legislation, surely more should be done to implement it vigorously.
	In conclusion, the wider the legislative net is drawn in traffic matters the greater is the need for effective enforcement. It is surely an irony that the greater the number of vehicles on our roads, the smaller the numbers of traffic police there are to deal with the problems that they create. Traffic police numbers are down by 12 per cent over the past five years, and although no one would quibble about the need to divert some police to more important and life-threatening areas like terrorism, the fact remains that one cannot go on robbing that particular resource indefinitely, even though the National Police Plan, strangely, does not have traffic enforcement as a priority.
	Will the Government undertake to ensure that a proportion of the new officers whom we all need so desperately are assigned to traffic duties? Furthermore, will they ensure—via ACPO, if that is what it takes—that in future traffic division numbers are ring-fenced? With such a government assurance, I hope, ringing in my ears, I sit down and wish the Bill well.

Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, I too wish the Bill well. I congratulate the Government on introducing it so early in this Parliament. I declare an interest as a former president of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents. I suppose I am in a unique sandwich in that I am following one former president in the shape of the Minister and I am soon to be followed by the current president, my noble friend Lady Gibson of Market Rasen.
	It was unfortunate that the calling of a general election caused the original Bill to be lost. I hope that in one respect the Government have made good use of the time caused by that delay to reflect on what was an original proposal, much trailed in the media, to reduce the number of penalty points for speeding in 30 mph areas. A wealth of evidence, much from government agencies, shows that a person struck by a car travelling at 40 mph is twice as likely to be killed as one hit by a car travelling at 30 mph. The risk to car occupants also rises exponentially at speeds between 20 and 40 mph.
	Faced with that evidence, which is reinforced by some very hard hitting government advertising showing what happens when a car hits a child pedestrian at 35 mph, it would have been perverse of the Government to give the impression that exceeding the speed limits in the 30 to 40 mph areas was seen somehow as a less serious matter than it used to be.
	A great deal of work has been undertaken to convince drivers that speeding kills and causes more severe injuries. We know that 70 per cent of drivers have admitted to speeding. We have had a confession from the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, on that subject this afternoon. One particular study finds that drivers regard driving at 40 mph in a 30 mph zone more acceptable than dropping litter. That just will not do and I hope that the Minister will make it clear that whatever may happen with marginal reductions in penalties at higher levels, in the 30 to 40 mph zones it is unacceptable for the penalty points to be reduced.
	Every road safety and environmental organisation that has written to me about the Bill vehemently opposes the original proposal. Therefore, I hope that the Government will be able to announce, if not at the end of this debate, certainly during the passage of the Bill, that that proposal has been dropped.
	The Government have generally done well in resisting what one could call the extremists in the motorists' lobby, or as the noble Viscount put into my mouth, the poop-poop lobby—those who believe that they have a God-given right to drive anywhere at any time and at any speed they choose, often with a mobile phone pressed to their ears and having had a few drinks before taking the wheel. Those are the campaigners. Indeed, they had their own television programme on the BBC, a matter to which I referred in an earlier debate. They are the kind of people who want to see an end to speed humps in residential areas and they want safety cameras removed altogether.
	I find the opposition to safety cameras perverse. The Government's evidence, to which my noble friend referred, shows how effective they are. Their three-year evaluation report, published last June, shows that overall 40 per cent fewer people were killed or seriously injured at sites where safety cameras were introduced. There was also a positive cost benefit of around four to one. In the third year, the benefits to society from the avoided injuries were in excess of £221 million compared with enforcement costs of around £54 million. That is an area where there is great public support for safety cameras. Opinion polls consistently demonstrate backing for them, despite irresponsible media campaigning against them.
	I am pleased that the Bill gives no comfort to those who behave antisocially and put other people's lives at risk. A number of proposals in it are wholly welcome. The increase in penalties for the use of a non-hands-free mobile phone when driving is just one example. During my noble friend's time as president of RoSPA and during my time, the society carried out a huge amount of campaigning work on this issue which culminated in legislation making it illegal to use a non-hands-free mobile phone when driving. The Bill increases the penalties and applies—crucially, as other speakers have said—a penalty point system for the use of these phones. Certainly RoSPA, and I think other road safety organisations, supports this proposal.
	But my noble friend will be aware that there is a lot of support for the view expressed by the noble Viscount that the legislation should extend to the use of hands-free mobile phones generally. Research shows that it is the distraction of the conversation that affects a driver's ability rather than his taking a hand off the wheel. So RoSPA and other road safety campaigners say that a ban on all mobile phone use would allow a much clearer message to be provided to drivers that phone conversations when driving are dangerous and result in road crashes, both during the conversation and in the period immediately after.
	The Government have also received advice on the even more controversial issue of drink-drive limits. The closing of loopholes relating to the high-risk offender scheme and the powers contained in the Police Reform Act 2002 are welcome. Also welcome is the plan contained in Clauses 13 and 14 of the Bill to establish a pilot programme to use alcohol ignition interlock devices as a way of dealing with repeat drink drivers.
	I am disappointed that more is not being done in the Bill on drink-drive limits because there is alarming evidence that after many years of seeing the numbers decline, the number of drink-drive casualties is rising. In 2002 there were 560 fatalities and 2,820 serious injuries in crashes involving illegal alcohol levels, compared with 460 fatalities and 2,470 serious injuries in 1998; and I suspect that the figures for 2003 and 2004 may show a similar alarming trend.
	That increase has been accompanied by a decline in the number of roadside screening tests for alcohol. Indeed, in Britain we now conduct fewer tests per head of the population than are conducted in almost any other country in Europe. The European average probability of being breath-tested is one in 16 inhabitants—the figure for the UK is one in 67. There is widespread public support, particularly among the road safety professionals, for the police to be given power to carry out targeted or intelligence-led breath testing. Therefore, if they know that drinking is taking place they can stop people who are in that area. I for one, although I know that this is a controversial matter, would not be opposed to the thought of random breath testing which exists in other European countries, particularly France.
	There is also very substantial support for reducing the drink-drive limit from 80 milligrams to 50 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood. Professor Richard Allsop of University College London says in a recent paper that lowering the limit could save 65 lives a year. It would also bring us into line with most of Europe. I hope that my noble friend can say that the Government's mind on this matter is not entirely closed.
	Finally, I turn to a road safety measure which does not feature in the Bill, but which would, none the less—on the Government's own figures, helpfully provided by my noble friend in the response to a Starred Question from me on 21 July last year—save hundreds of road casualties a year. My question then was whether the Government could identify road safety benefits which would follow the introduction of single/double British summer time.
	My noble friend Lord Davies replied that a government commissioned report by the Transport Research Laboratory, published in October 1998, concluded that if the UK adopted single/double British summer time—that is, GMT plus one hour in the winter and GMT plus two hours in the summer—thereby making the evenings lighter, it could result in 400 fewer people being killed or seriously injured each year in Great Britain.
	My noble friend will recall that there then followed a short debate in which virtually every speaker expressed amazement that if the road safety benefits were so substantial we had not made this change. Perhaps the later stages of this Bill will allow us to return to that issue.
	I am conscious that there are a number of other important road safety issues, which there is not time for me to cover this afternoon. For example, I would have liked to have said something about the need for lower speed limits on rural roads, something to which the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, referred, as did the noble Viscount, and the establishment of a rural road hierarchy. I would like to commend the Campaign to Protect Rural England for the quality of its briefing on that subject. These are matters to which we can return in Committee. Meanwhile, I am pleased to support the Bill and I thank the Government for bringing it forward.

Earl Peel: My Lords, I should like to address my remarks this afternoon to one specific problem of road safety which is becoming the bane of many people's lives in my part of the world in north Yorkshire—namely, motor bikers.
	The areas around and in the North Yorkshire National Park are now regularly plagued by hosts of these machines on most weekends and bank holidays and they are literally making people's lives a total misery. The noble Lord, Lord Davies, referred to what I think he described as a "national motorcycling strategy". It appears to have had no effect on these particular motor cyclists.
	My noble friend Lord Hanningfield talked about these bikers—and I am interested to hear that a similar problem exists in Essex—as being 40 years of age and older. I would concur with that. It is extraordinary that when you see a group of 20 or 30 bikers in, say, Helmsley Square, and they take their helmets off, most of them have grey hair and grey beards. I think that they see their bikes as a source of eternal youth. However, I am absolutely certain that that is not how the residents regard them.
	This Bill, much of which I support, introduces a number of steps to outlaw devices which prevent speed cameras operating. However, in north Yorkshire we appear to have a device that prevents the operation of any fixed speed cameras at all—namely, the police. That is perhaps surprising given that the evidence from the independent review of the safety camera programme by University College London and the PA Consulting Group found that cameras significantly reduce the number of people killed or seriously injured at camera sites—a point that has been made by other noble Lords.
	Many of these bikers are tragically killed—one was killed recently just outside my house—and many are injured. Yet there seems to be a strange reluctance by the police to tackle the problem.
	Like others, I take the view that many speed cameras are unnecessary and are simply designed as revenue earners. In north Yorkshire, however, communities plagued by these bikers have specifically requested cameras because of the problem. But the option appears to have been denied to them.
	The activity of this group of bikers is known as "destination speeding". It is deliberate, extreme speeding either by individuals or by packs of 15, 20 or even more. They travel large distances to race their super-powered machines across the county's roads as though they were at Brand's Hatch with little or no fear of being caught. They overtake on blind corners in order to keep up with the ones in front, or in the rare event when they are stuck behind a car, they seem to sit only a few inches from the vehicle's tail, which is very unnerving for the driver concerned. They drive in a menacing and threatening way which upsets local residents and visitors alike.
	There was an incident only the other day in my neighbouring town of Middle Ham, which some noble Lords may know is an important area for race-horse training. Strings of race horses were going out on to the gallops. Twenty or so of these bikes came through and the horses went everywhere. It was absolute mayhem and these chaps did not slow down at all.
	No one can appreciate why, along with the Department for Transport guidelines, local feelings are being so blatantly ignored. It seems quite wrong to have such a wide variation in the interpretation of the guidelines throughout the country. All that happens is that this menace is exported to areas where these bikers know they can get away without prosecution.
	The Bill's introduction of graduated fixed penalties should be welcomed. The idea has a logical ring to it and could go some way towards deterring the problem to which I am referring, but that will happen only if the people are caught.
	This time of the year—summer—in north Yorkshire is the main season for destination bikers. I have been told that there are roads through the national parks on which bikers actually boast about reaching speeds—it is hard to believe—of 180 miles an hour. I know that that is eight miles an hour short of the figure cited by the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, but 180 miles an hour in a national park is really quite breathtaking.
	I am not one who subscribes to the theory that life in a national park should be preserved in aspic, or that everyday life should be compromised simply because of a boundary, but there is a limit—or not, as the case may be. The noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, mentioned speed limit reductions on some country roads. In some circumstances that may be justified, but there is no point reducing the speed limit if the present speed limits are not being checked out. That is pointless. Those who so wantonly undermine the principles of the national park ethos deserve special attention.
	I am not in any way anti-biker, far from it, but those people—I use my words carefully, and I do not think that I am exaggerating—are wanton criminals endangering not only their own lives but many others besides. It is simply unjust and unrealistic to bracket those dangerous criminal sociopaths in the same category as a driver out with his family who may have thoughtlessly driven at 68 miles an hour in a 60 mile an hour stretch of road or, indeed, my poor secretary, who got done the other day in Kendal for doing 33 miles an hour in a 30 mile an hour zone.
	The Bill also introduces retraining courses, and I have no objection to them in principle. However, for the deliberate speeder—such as the bikers to whom I refer—the opportunity to trim a few points off the penalty might seem a good idea, but it will have no lasting effect on their behaviour. Frankly, offering them retraining courses is like teaching good manners to a mugger. He might learn the etiquette—he might even mug you more politely—but he is still a mugger and, sadly, the victim still remains the victim.
	I appreciate that the acts of speeding and of installing noise enhancement boxes to exhaust systems—another problem—are both illegal and so the police have the powers to deal with them. I know that the Minister will say that. But why is it not being done? Why are they not taking action against those people?
	We know that urban policing takes priority over rural areas—that is a fact—and that that is a contributory factor to the problem not being addressed with greater commitment. No doubt the problem is further enhanced by the fact that crime detection targets are easier to achieve by concentrating on urban areas to the detriment of rural dwellers. Furthermore—and this statistic has already been mentioned by at least one noble Lord—in England, when the Government came to power in 1997, they inherited 9,200 road traffic officers, I think; that figure has now dropped to about 6,280.
	Whatever the reason, do the Government intend to take the problem of these lunatic bikers seriously and have regard to the genuine anger and frustration in the areas to which they come and interfere with people's lives? I will certainly consider whether appropriate amendments can be introduced to the Bill to help to address that problem but, in the mean time, I hope that the Minister will take a helpful and constructive approach to trying to deal with it.
	Finally, I seek the Minister's clarification on a different matter. In the Explanatory Notes, on page 10, under the heading,
	"Speed assessment equipment detection devices",
	there is an anomaly, for which I should be grateful for an explanation. The note states:
	"The amendment defines a 'speed assessment equipment detection device' as 'a device, the purpose, or one of the purposes, of which is to detect or interfere with the operation of equipment used to assess the speed of motor vehicles'. The precise subset of the devices which will be prohibited will be identified in the regulations under section 41 of the RTA but it is not intended to include in the provision those devices that only contain information about camera site locations".
	Is the intention behind the Bill that it will be an offence to have a device that interferes with the working of speed detectors, or is it also the intention for machines in motor cars devised to detect the presence of a speed camera to be made illegal? If the Minister could explain that to me, I should be extremely grateful.

The Earl of Courtown: My Lords, I, too, thank Her Majesty's Government for bringing forward this important Bill so early in this Parliament. It will also be appreciated by many people outside this House who will be taking a keen interest in what is said. Much of the Bill is admirable and I wish it well. But this is a road safety Bill and, as my noble friend Lord Hanningfield and many other noble Lords have said, when the Bill has passed through both Houses of Parliament we do not want to feel that there has been a missed opportunity to make our roads safer.
	I will try not to repeat too much of what has been said. As regards drink driving, I am glad that the Secretary of State will be able to require the worst offenders to retake their tests. I also note that at the end of a ban reoffenders can be stopped from driving pending medical inquiries. Is the period that they can be stopped from driving part of the ban or an additional period?
	It also interests me that there will be a pilot scheme to introduce alcohol ignition interlock systems. As the noble Earl, Lord Glasgow, said, I, too, am concerned that there could be abuse of the system. The people involved in those systems are likely to be the reoffenders, who could get up to some tricks. I notice that the fitting of detection devices, which I understand to include the detection and blocking of speed cameras and guns in the vicinity, will be prohibited. But GPS systems, which show where there are speed cameras, will not be banned. They are one and the same thing. They both show where a speed camera is. Drivers can slow down beforehand and speed up again afterwards. I find the warning signs that tell drivers they are breaking the speed limit extremely useful when I drive around the countryside. Probably, they are produced at far less cost than speed cameras.
	Mobile phones have been mentioned by many noble Lords. I am pleased that penalties for using them have been increased. As I understand the legislation, so-called hands-free phones can still be used. There is no such thing as a hands-free phone: a button still has to be pressed in order to use it. Why do the Government not consider a total ban on using phones while driving?
	My noble friend Lord Hanningfield and the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, mentioned the use of reflective coats. I have a reflective coat in my van to wear when I visit building sites. I must admit that when I visit sites that are close to roads and I am wearing the reflective coat, I feel a great deal safer. I know that I am highly visible.
	My noble friend Lord Peel mentioned the problems with motorcycles in his part of the world. I live and work in the Cotswolds, where increasing numbers of motorcycles tour the countryside. I know that many of them are part of perfectly respectable motorcycle groups, but there are some who, as my noble friend said, overtake at blind corners, speed and generally make a nuisance of themselves.
	My noble friend also mentioned his secretary who was caught driving at 33 miles per hour. My wife did not really want me to mention her, but she was caught doing 35 miles per hour in a 30 mile per hour speed limit. She is an active member of a road safety group and found it rather embarrassing. She took the choice of attending speed awareness training.
	I do not know whether the Minister has ever been on such a course or has had the opportunity to look into how they operate, but my understanding is that these courses are open only to those who are just over the speed limit; that is, people like my wife who, is probably the safest driver I know. She drives me round the bend, but she is still one of the safest drivers that I know. She has been through unfortunate circumstances. She was shown dire photographs of road crashes, and the consequences of speeding were drummed into her. To a certain extent that is good. If people are aware that any speeding offence could result in someone's death, that must be good. But we are pointing the gun at the wrong group of people.
	A number of issues are mentioned in the Bill: particularly close to my heart is the issue of people being killed in road accidents. Many people outside the House feel that due recognition in law is not given. Killing on the road should be treated in the same way as any other killing. Therefore, the proper charge following a culpable road death must be a manslaughter charge. As the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, said, there should be a charge concerning injuring people, which causes immense expense to the police, the hospitals and the families involved.
	The Minister talked about making roads safer. The Bill looks at the treatment of persistent offenders. The problem with persistent offenders is that they do not have driving licences, insurance or, possibly, roadworthy cars. How do we treat those individuals? They just get back on the road, taking no notice of what the courts have dealt them. I hesitate to say it, but a custodial sentence should be considered for those repeat offenders.
	This is an interesting debate and good points have been made by many noble Lords. I look forward to Minister's response.

Lord Tanlaw: My Lords, the Government have an honourable record on road safety, which goes back to the days of Barbara Castle, who introduced the breathalyser, and pedestrian crossings. I think that the breathalyser did not get much support from the Prime Minister at the time, but nevertheless she got it through.
	I find it rather bizarre, but I may have to declare an interest in astronomy and horology because of the two questions that I will ask the Minister. They concern the earth's rotation, the polar tilt, the seasonal changes, the equinoxes and the solstices. My first question relates to Clause 16, in particular the legality of speed assessment equipment. My second question concerns the summer-time period that seems to be excluded from the Bill, to which the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester referred.
	First, we have come a long way from policemen lurking behind the bushes with a stopwatch to the so-called Gatso speed detection device. Some noble Lords will recall that this device is named after Maurice Gatsonides, the popular racing driver of the 1950s, on whose invention it is based. It takes two photographs half a second apart, from which the speed of the vehicle can be calculated and recorded. He invented the device to increase his speed going round corners on the race track.
	That led to my late friend Archie Scott-Brown being able to adopt the four-wheel drift, which means that you put the accelerator on when going round a corner while maintaining the curves. But in fact, Archie Scott-Brown could not get a driving licence because he was seriously disabled in that he had only one arm. That was a great tragedy because he was such a successful racing driver and could have shown people what can be overcome.
	However, I understand that all automatic law enforcement equipment on the roads must be based on the accurate timing of how and when an offence was committed. I suspect that split-second timing is required to give an accurate picture of a vehicle's speed, and the clock used to undertake this task should also give the time and date of the alleged offence. The clocks and speed assessment devices will, I presume, take their time from the pips at Rugby, which is atomically-based time, known for short as UTC but known internationally as Co-ordinated Universal Time.
	That was also the title of a Bill I had the privilege of steering through this House in 1997. It sought to co-ordinate the legal timescale of this country, as defined in the Interpretation Act 1978, with UTC time as transmitted by the pips from Rugby. That is the legal timescale of all the industrialised nations except the United Kingdom. The Bill passed through the House, but the Labour government of the day did not see fit to make it law. Indeed, some noble Lords may recall that during the Second Reading of the Bill, I anticipated that if different timescales were not harmonised, problems would arise in the law courts, where precise timing is an issue.
	I shall try to explain briefly the difference between the two timescales, one based mainly on the atomic timescale and the other on the rotational speed of the earth, which is the basis of our legal timescale. GMT is an earth rotation timescale that in the 1920s was renamed Universal Time. There is no such thing as GMT. UT was split into three different forms, with which I shall not weary the House. But GMT no longer has a formal definition. In fact, our legal timescale is Universal Time 1, but no clock in this country to which the civil population has access records UT1.
	The civil timescale, the pips from Rugby by which we all set our watches and clocks, is a hybrid based in part on the atomic timescale and in part on the rotation of the earth. Every year it is adjusted by what some people call the leap second. In 2007, because of the intricacies of GPS satellites and the forthcoming new Galileo satellite to be used for navigation purposes, it is quite possible that we will have to stop the leap second. That will mean that the legal timescale of this country will continue to become slower and more out of synch with the civil timescale by which we all set our clocks.
	I say again what I said in 1997. This issue could arise with the time-stamping of important mail, which has legal connotations and, indeed, in things like speed assessment devices. The devices use UTC, not the legal timescale. I feel that it is important for the Minister to say whether these devices are legal or illegal because they do not use the legal timescale of the country.
	I have tabled a Parliamentary Question for 22 June next in order to note that there is in fact a difference of seven seconds between the pips transmitted for digital radios and those transmitted for analogue radios. In relation to this Bill, where particular lengths of road are subject to timed systems so that at certain times a speed limit applies and at others it does not, if someone has a digital radio fitted in their car it will be seven seconds out. It is not fair for someone to be caught by an automatic system timed to the Rugby pips when in fact they would not have really broken the law. Some direction on that would be helpful.
	My next point concerns a matter raised by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, of which the Minister is a past president, and we have heard a very good speech from its current president. However, have they not read the parliamentary briefings that were distributed to myself and others on summer time? Having read the briefing, I went immediately to the Library in order to find out whether any reference is made to it in the Government paper, Tomorrow's Roads: safer for everyone—the first three year review. I asked the staff to pick out the paragraph in which summer time would be covered so as to prepare for this debate. But I was told that it could not be found. I asked for the entire 51-page document to be printed out, and not one mention of summer time is made.
	I then asked about the first paper, Tomorrow's Roads: safer for everyone 2000, again 51 pages long. How many noble Lords have read this stuff, I do not know. On going through that paper, I found in Chapter 5 some five lines which state:
	"The conclusion was that this might save over 100 deaths per year and taken together with serious injuries save well over 400 such casualties . . . A saving of this magnitude is something we must take seriously".
	How serious are five lines in all the bumf produced here? I do not call that serious at all. It states:
	"But a change to SDST would have much wider ramifications which need to be considered".
	What are we doing about this? How is it to be considered? I have raised the question about summer time on many occasions, as have other noble Lords. But it gets exactly the same answer as that of noble Lords on the other side of the House. Indeed, I think that the Liberal Democrats make the same link. They are dominated by their party managers. The party managers are advising the Government, Ministers and the parties opposite not to get involved with time change.
	We have before us a road safety Bill and they have avoided the question: only five lines among 75 pages of stuff on which the Bill has been based. Is this Bill about saving lives or not? I believe that it is. The detail of the Bill almost suggests setting roads tests for kids on tricycles. It goes right down the line, but it misses the point.
	Of course it has an answer for Scottish hill farmers. I have a declared interest as a Scottish hill farmer. My cows and sheep cannot read the hours on a clock. I have said that before. My shepherd does not mind an extra hour in bed. Anyway, most farming is now done indoors. People complain about buildings. Builders today work in plastic cocoons which are not affected by temperature and are supplied with plenty of internal light. It is a nonsense and it is for a purely political reason that this is not brought in. That is a disgrace. It ruins the whole of this well-intentioned Bill that is in the tradition of Labour's efforts to improve road safety.
	When the Minister responds, I think that he must explain why the issue has been missed out this time. I just do not know. Will there be an amendment to the Bill? The motoring organisations, the AA Trust and the RAC Foundation, have both said that they would strongly recommend, along with RoSPA, the reintroduction of a trial period of continuous summer time. What on earth is wrong with that? The statistics we have to go on are years out of date. Why can they not be brought up to date? They are not brought up to date for political reasons. Tell the political managers to get lost and go back to road safety. I want to suggest that to the Minister.
	Will the Government incorporate an amendment or bring forward a separate Bill to introduce a trial period for lighter evenings similar to the one they threw out of the Commons only the other day, and similar to the experiment tried from 1968–71? If not, then on the last Saturday of this October, when we savour our extra hour in bed while we turn back the clocks, let us remember that we will be sentencing to death more than 100 unnamed men, women and children and consigning more than 400 unnamed children to hospital. Soon they will all have names, when they have been incorporated in an updated edition of the Government's document Tomorrow's Roads: safer for everyone on which the Road Safety Bill has been built.

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, when I first saw the Bill I was not sure whether it would generate substantial debate. In fact, the debate that we have had has been very reflective and extremely interesting. Noble Lords' personal points of view—I was going to say prejudices but perhaps I do not mean that—have come very much to the fore. That is inevitable when you have a Bill that is—I do not mean this disrespectfully—a bit of a hotchpotch of provisions and proposals. The Bill covers a multitude of areas, many of which are already the subject of legislation, so it is either building on or changing that legislation.
	One clause in particular drew my attention as being one of those small snippets that appear in a Bill such as this. I draw the attention of noble Lords to Clause 42, on private hire vehicles in London. After giving a whole lot of references, it simply says, "omit 'to the public'". I am fascinated by what this clause is about; there is nothing about it in the Explanatory Notes. It is one of those areas that I will be delving into before we start again to make sure I know what it is about.
	A number of serious issues have been raised, and one or two have come up over and over again. Noble Lords have done them full justice this afternoon. I start with the speech made by my noble friend Lord Peel on motorcycling. He gave a graphic description of what happens when a lot of motorcyclists get together in the middle of the Yorkshire moors, hell-bent on having fun and riding their motorcycles at a huge rate. That is a specific and extreme example of what happens all the time. He was not only talking about speed but about disregard for the law. It would not be unfair to him to paraphrase his questions, which are, "what is the law doing about such issues", and secondly, "if it is not doing it, why is it not doing it?". He then led on to the question that has been raised about a number of areas in the Bill, which is, "what resources are available for seeing that the law is upheld?".
	It seems inexplicable that the police watch on roads and on sub-roads has been reduced. Plenty of evidence has been quoted today to show that the number of traffic police is far less than it was. Of course, one understands that in the case of terrorism, or where there are other major concerns, police may be diverted, but they cannot and must not be diverted for ever. Road safety is of enormous importance, and even if they are testing out their vehicles at 150 mph there must be other policemen who are able to chase others who are doing 150 mph along motorways.
	What is the Minister's view on resources? Is there anything else that we should put in the Bill to ensure that there are sufficient traffic police to deal not only with the existing legislation but particularly with legislation concerning rural areas? My noble friend Lord Peel talked about rural areas, and other rural issues were touched on today such as speed limits on country roads. Perhaps we all like to think that the country looks after itself, but it does not; and there are matters here that we need to consider, particularly speed limits on country roads.
	One of the most serious and difficult areas in road safety is drink-driving. That concerns not only people who are slightly over the limit but those who are hopelessly and completely over the limit. You have only to read this morning's newspaper reporting the deaths of an elderly couple who were forced off the road by a couple of drunken youths who were playing chicken. They were driving at high speed trying to overtake and then pulling back in just before they were hit by oncoming traffic. That is a road safety issue. Again, why is that happening when there is legislation that should be enforced to ensure that people are not killed in that terrible way?
	Other noble Lords have asked whether hands-free mobile phones should also be the subject of legislation. We all have our own views on that. I am not clear whether, if someone pulls up at the side of the road to make an emergency call, or just a call, that is covered by the clauses in the Bill, which seem specifically to say that using a hand-held phone while the car is moving is an offence. I should have declared earlier that I am a magistrate, and I deal with road traffic cases all the time. In many cases, it is unclear whether legislation refers only to a moving vehicle or to a moving vehicle and a stationary vehicle. The Minister might be able to answer that for me; it may be that we need to look at it.
	The other difficult area is drugs and drug testing, which has been referred to by a number of noble Lords this afternoon. It is undoubtedly one of the most serious ways in which people cause accidents. They do not appear to know when they get into a vehicle that they are incapable, and the police seem to be unable to decide when they find them whether they are capable and whether they have taken drugs. The current technology does not appear to be up to testing for drugs, unlike the breathalyser, which detects alcohol. I hope that there will be some news during the passage of the Bill on what may be available, and we may need to move amendments to that effect about drugs and drug testing. At the moment, people's hands are tied, and it is as serious an issue now as drink driving.
	The noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, referred to road pricing. It is partly a question of road safety, and I am sure that there will be many opportunities to discuss the matter. I return to the perennial problem of congestion charging, which has been introduced in London partly for congestion purposes and also partly for road safety purposes. I suggest that we might return to this issue, on the basis that perhaps congestion charging and road pricing should be seen to have the support of a large majority of the people in whose area they are about to be introduced before they are introduced. We suffer in London from a great amount of consultation having taken place on this subject and not one jot of attention having been paid to it. It would be helpful if we were able to introduce referendums into the legislation for this and for other pricing matters. Maybe that is a bit tenuous to this legislation, but that is what legislation is about; to see what we can get from Ministers during the course of it.
	Road safety grants appear in Clause 1. The noble Viscount, Lord Simon, referred to them. It is not clear from the legislation how they are to be administered. They are left in the hands of the Secretary of State, which is always dangerous. There is no indication—and the Local Government Association is interested in this—whether those grants would be ring-fenced, or top-sliced, or whether they would be handed out by bids, or as part of a grant. We should like to explore that.
	Finally, motorway picnic areas sound absolutely fantastic, but they would be a nightmare if they were not maintained, looked-after and supervised. We do not want to give permission for something that ends up being another area that people avoid like the plague because they cannot go there safely and find clean facilities.
	It has been an interesting afternoon. I look forward to the Minister's replies to some of the matters that have been raised.

Lord Adonis: My Lords, in moving the draft Restriction on the Preparation of Adoption Reports Regulations 2005, I shall speak also to the draft Suitability of Adopters Regulations 2005, laid on 2 March.
	As an education Minister, perhaps I may, first, add my tributes to those already paid to Emily Blatch in the House over the past two days. She was a formidable performer in the House and had a great passion for education. She will be greatly missed, not least by many in the education world.
	Section 94 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 provides for regulations to impose restrictions on those who may prepare adoption reports, including reports about the suitability of a person to adopt a child or the suitability of a child for adoption. These reports form an essential part of decisions about adoptions. It is vital that they are impartial and accurate and produced by suitably qualified and experienced staff so that appropriate decisions are made for children, whose entire well-being, safety and future prospects are at stake in these decisions.
	Section 94 of the 2002 Act, together with these regulations, will ensure that only qualified social workers employed by or on behalf of adoption agencies, or properly supervised social work students, may prepare the adoption reports prescribed in the regulations.
	The regulations specify the requirements regarding the relevant experience of a person preparing reports or the experience of a person who supervises him or her. For example, social workers employed by an adoption agency will have to have at least three years' post-qualifying experience in childcare social work, including experience of adoption, or they must be supervised by a social worker with this experience. The regulations will apply to prescribed reports prepared both in domestic and inter-country adoption cases.
	The Suitability of Adopters Regulations set out the specific factors an adoption agency must take into account when making any report assessing the suitability of a person to adopt a child. These regulations are intended to help achieve clarity, consistency and transparency in the adoption process, for the benefit of the children concerned and also of prospective adopters and the social work profession.
	The Adoption and Children Act 2002 will, for the first time, allow unmarried couples—whether of the same sex or of different sexes—to apply to adopt jointly. Reflecting concerns rightly expressed during the passage of the legislation through Parliament and commitments made at the time, the suitability regulations require adoption agencies to pay particular attention to the stability and permanence of couple relationships when assessing the suitability to adopt. These regulations apply equally to same sex and different sex partnerships.
	My department has consulted extensively on the draft regulations and they have been welcomed by all responsible parties in the adoption field. To further strengthen our support for adoption, later this Session we shall be issuing good practice guidance on assessing the suitability of adopters. I commend these two sets of regulations to the House. I beg to move.
	Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 2 March be approved [11th report from the Joint Committee, Session 2004–05].—(Lord Adonis.)

Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, before I turn to the regulations, perhaps I may use the opportunity as her opposite number on these Benches to pay a brief tribute to the late Lady Blatch. Emily Blatch was a fighter. She fought for the good of children all her life and she showed that fighting spirit in the courage with which she faced her final illness. I had many disagreements with her from these Benches, but I always admired her tenacity and the conscientious way in which she addressed all the legislation that came before her. Her knowledge and experience were par excellence. She had an eye for detail which we all envied and we will miss her very much in your Lordships' House.
	We on these Benches also welcome these regulations. In looking first at the Restriction on the Preparation of Adoption Reports Regulations, I have one concern. That relates to reports written about a child. It is right, as the regulations provide, that the person compiling the report should be a social worker with at least three years' post-qualification experience in social work with children or should be supervised by such a person. However, like the noble Earl, Lord Howe, I believe that these reports should always be done by a social worker who knows the child, and I regret that that is not in the regulations. It may well be in the guidance. Perhaps the Minister can tell us.
	It would be counterproductive if the task of writing the report were passed over to a social worker within the family placement team in order to comply with the regulations, even though the worker concerned did not know the child well. That also applies to reports of visits to a child placed for adoption.
	I might also say in passing that other reports written in connection with care planning for children also need to be completed by experienced social workers who know the child or supervised by such people. For example, a decision about a long-term fostering placement or the return of a child to his family is a very significant decision in the life of that child and may be subject to less scrutiny than an adoption report. It is all the more important that this is carried out by somebody who knows the child. Perhaps the noble Lord could keep that in mind.
	I turn to the Suitability of Adopters Regulations. Again we welcome the clarity that the regulations bring but we deplore the fact that it has taken two and a half years to bring them forward since the Royal Assent for the Adoption and Children Act. There may be reasons for that, such as the transfer to the DfES and the incoming Children Act 2004, but the knock-on effect on training—a point mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Howe—for all concerned must be considerable. Perhaps the Minister could say whether the time has been used constructively on these matters.
	Having said that, we welcome the regulations which we believe do what is necessary. We welcome paragraph 5 which gives a right to those not considered suitable to be adopters to go before a panel and thereby gain the right to an independent review of their application. The system has to be seen to be fair to all prospective adopters. Currently the guidance is only in draft but I wonder whether I could take this opportunity to flag up three omissions from it at this point in the hope that they will be taken into account in the final version.
	The first is that there is virtually no reference in the guidance to the issues that arise when adoption is being considered for a child who is the subject of care proceedings. We know that the sooner a child can be properly placed in a permanent placement the better because a child's emotional development is very much affected by their ability to make a bond with a caring adult at an early stage. That is why speed is of the essence, albeit with due care, to get it right.
	However, this parallel tracking can only be done if everyone concerned—the adoption agency, the local authority and the courts—act together in a co-ordinated way towards the same objectives. That might require further training for some members of the judiciary. A way forward proposed by a joint committee of five of the leading agencies with an interest in adoption is for joint guidance to be issued by the DfES, the President of the Family Division or the new family justice council when that is established. This should also clarify that reports to courts should be available to the panel.
	The second point is about the disclosure of confidential information. The guidance leaves it to each individual agency to work out its own procedures. That is really not good enough. Examples abound of conflicting, confusing and even misleading advice from different agencies and a lead from the Government, with input from the relevant professional bodies is urgently needed.
	The third point is that there are several places in the regulations and the guidance where the rights and needs of birth parents and other relatives are not sufficiently acknowledged. Several points need to be addressed. They are, first, the availability of pre-birth counselling for parents considering adoption with information and advice about the implications of the various options with therapeutic counselling where necessary; secondly, the need for more guidance about the role of the independent support worker for parents—as the noble Earl, Lord Howe, mentioned—emphasising the value of support to birth parents through contact with other couples who have been through the same experience; and, thirdly, ensuring that parents have an opportunity to express their views directly—if necessary, in writing—and to comment on information about them given to the panel. That should be, but is not always, done now; it should not be optional.
	Fourthly, there should be a contribution by the birth parents to the matching considerations and the drawing up of the placement plan. It is hard to see how a panel can fulfil its duty without that. Finally, there should be a role for parents in the reviews under regulation 31. It is not sufficient to include them under,
	"any other persons the agency considers relevant".
	That should be rephrased to indicate that their views should be sought unless it is inappropriate in the particular case.
	If birth parents are treated with consideration, provided with full information and support throughout the whole process and their views given due weight, their former opposition to a placement plan may be reduced, or changes of heart from those parents considering placing a child for adoption will be avoided. I think that we would all like to avoid the heartache and waste of professionals' time that such last-minute withdrawals entail, so I hope that the Minister will take those constructive comments into consideration when preparing the final draft of the guidance.

Lord Adonis: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Earl and the noble Baroness for their warm welcome for the regulations and for the many points that they raised. I will write to them on many of the detailed points, so that I can give full particulars, rather than attempting to address them now when, in some cases, I do not have the full details to hand.
	The big issue that the noble Earl raised was the brevity of the regulations and the reference across to the guidance. We take the guidance extremely seriously—indeed, we are consulting on it at present—and it addresses several of the issues raised in the debate. To take only one example—the issue of stability of relationships and same-sex and different-sex couples who are seeking to adopt and how they are assessed—the guidance will set out clearly what factors should be taken account of by social workers. Indeed, the guidance on which we are presently consulting sets out nine factors in making those assessments.
	Social workers will seek to discuss with prospective adopters all nine of the following issues: the history of their relationship including the length of time together; what makes their current relationship work; whether the relationship has been severely tested and survived; how the couple go about resolving difficulties; how the prospective adopters perceive commitment; where the couples see themselves in 20 years' time; how decisions are made within the partnership; how conflict is dealt with in the relationship in respect of monetary and domestic issues; whether the partners support each other and meet each others' needs; and other relevant considerations. Those and many of the other issues raised in the questions will be set out in the guidance that we will offer; I will ensure that full details are made available to the noble Earl and the noble Baroness.
	One issue of great significance was raised by both the noble Earl and the noble Baroness. It concerns the experience and standing of the social worker who writes the report on a child; whether it is satisfactory that such a report could be written by someone who is not themselves a social worker of three years' standing and with the experience set out in the regulations; and the importance of ensuring that such reports are written by social workers who, wherever possible, have direct experience of the children in question.
	I am told that the statutory guidance to the adoption agency mentions the importance of the reports about a child being written by the worker who knows them or, if the social worker is new, by the person who knows the child and will work with the social worker in question. I am told that that is set out clearly, so that gives satisfaction on that point.
	It is best if I say that I will return to the other issues in correspondence, but of course we recognise the significance of the all the points raised, such as the importance of training and its upgrading. I am not aware of how we plan to gather and publish statistics, but I appreciate the importance of the point raised by the noble Earl of ensuring that the new category of adopters are closely monitored as the new regulations come into force.
	The issue of the relationship between the Department for Education and Skills, the Department for Constitutional Affairs and the courts is clearly important. We all recognise the rights and needs of birth parents and how they can be properly catered for in the process, as the noble Baroness said. On the issue of parallel tracking, which she raised, I must confess that, not having been engaged closely in these events for two and a half years, I cannot give her an honest answer as to why it has taken so long to produce the regulations but, again, I hope to give her a full account of what has been done in the intervening period and satisfy her that it has led to a commensurate improvement in the quality of the regulations and the training available.
	However, I note one very welcome development during those two and a half years, which is a significant increase in the number of people coming forward to train for social work qualifications. As I know that one issue that has been raised about the impact of the regulations is whether they will depress the supply of available social workers working with agencies that undertake that work, that is a welcome development. For the future of the social work profession and all that it serves, including the needs of looked-after children and those going forward for adoption, having a better resourced, staffed and qualified social work profession is of the utmost importance.
	I will come back to many of the points raised, but in conclusion, let me say that adoption can easily become an adult-focused activity, focused on meeting the needs of prospective adopters and birth relatives, but adoption is a service for children. More than 5,000 children are adopted in England and Wales each year; three out of five of those are looked-after children. Their voices should be heard. Their interests are always paramount. We believe that the regulations will help vulnerable children to move to loving homes much more easily. There is no more important task that we can promote here in Parliament.
	I am glad that the orders have been so widely welcomed and I commend them to the House.

Lord Skidelsky: rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will consider the effect of oil prices on the economic and political outlook.
	My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to bring this important subject to the attention of your Lordships' House and thank in advance that small but select group of your Lordships who have chosen to take part in this debate. It is the fate of Unstarred Questions that they often miss their most topical moment. When I tabled the Question for debate in the autumn, the price of a barrel of crude oil was $55 and was widely expected to go on rising. Prophets of doom sprang up everywhere forecasting a price of $100 or more and the collapse of civilisation. Almost immediately, the price fell to $46 a barrel; since then it has fluctuated between $45 and $55.
	Leave aside the fact that the forecasters were wildly wrong. The important point is that the virtual tripling of oil prices created scarcely a ripple in the economies of the West. There was no repeat of the stagflation of the early 1970s, when two oil price hikes led to rising inflation and unemployment simultaneously.
	Let me stand back for a moment before considering why that is so and what it tells us about today's relationship between oil and the economy. Analysts of commodities have usually been either optimists or pessimists. The optimists emphasise the elasticity of supply in response to demand and human ingenuity in inventing substitutes. The pessimists point to the inherent scarcity of supply of commodities in relation to demand and the high cost of finding substitutes.
	One of the most famous historical pessimists was the 19th century economist, William Jevons, who wrote a book called The Coal Question in 1862. In that book, he predicted the imminent exhaustion of coal supplies. The coal age, as we know, went on for 100 years or more after that. Jevons was also alarmed by the approaching scarcity of paper owing to deforestation and laid in such vast stores of writing and packing paper that 50 years after his death it had still not all been used up by his family.
	That led Keynes into a disquisition on the psychology of hoarding, with what he called hoarders'
	"readiness to be alarmed and excited by the exhaustion of resources".
	In the early 1970s there was the famous Club of Rome, some of whose doomsday scenarios predicted the death of millions through starvation as population outstripped food supply. Then came the green revolution.
	What is the situation with regard to oil today? Are we up against some absolute limit of supply that will push prices inexorably higher, forcing a drastic reduction in energy consumption and a revolution in our habits of life? Or are there enough supplies, including substitutes, to maintain existing levels of consumption and growth?
	The pessimists can point to the fact that the bulk of the world's oil reserves is concentrated in two regions: the Persian Gulf and the Caspian Sea basin, with proven reserves good for only 60 years at present rates of production. Those also happen to be among the most unstable regions in the world.
	Supply can be increased rapidly from the Persian Gulf, where production is still well below capacity. But the Middle East is a powder keg. Before the second Gulf War Iraq produced 3 million barrels per day, a level that it has not yet regained. The Saudi regime is insecure. Terrorism has plenty of opportunities to interrupt supply. The Caspian region is also politically volatile, as recent events in Uzbekistan have shown. In short, there is a high correlation between areas of conflict and lootable natural resources.
	The great powers certainly act on a pessimistic assumption. The great game of foreign policy is security of oil supplies: the prize, political influence or control over reserves, oil fields and pipelines. A couple of weeks ago world leaders gathered in Azerbaijan to fete the first oil flowing from the Azeri oil fields through Georgia to a Turkish shipping terminal on the Mediterranean. That is part of a project to develop the Caspian as a secure alternative to the Gulf and to reduce Russian influence in the area, as the pipeline avoids Russia.
	A little further ahead, we see the great game developing in the South China Sea, which also has reserves of sub-sea oil and gas. I avoid comment on the logic of the game, and whether it is well founded, but I would point out that in the near future supply is not the main problem. OPEC, which already pumps more than one-third of the world's oil, is capable of increasing its production if it wants to. The longer-term problem is not political but economic. It is that growing world demand is not matched by an increased rate of finding new oil to replace declining existing wells. Today's high prices are driven as much by fears of supply shortages in the future as by present events.
	The main change on the demand side—with which your Lordships will be familiar—is the explosive growth of China and India. China has already overtaken Japan as the world's second largest oil consumer, with over 8 per cent of the world's oil consumption. Aggressive Chinese stockpiling has been adding to the pressure on prices.
	In the United States, Europe and Japan economic growth is picking up after the recent recession. Rich countries' oil consumption is on an ever-rising curve, with energy-saving technologies being offset by more extravagant petrol use: witness the popularity in the United States of the gas-guzzling Hummers—or Humvee sports utility vehicles.
	Both supply and demand factors are thus combining to push prices higher. Since 1973–74 it has been conventional to talk about a destabilising oil price cycle. Rapid growth pushes oil and energy prices higher; higher oil prices push the world into recession, leading to a fall in prices; the fall in oil prices pushes world growth and prices higher; and so the cycle continues.
	However, the important fact about the present situation is that there has been little sign of any such cycle. Why is that? The following reasons seem compelling. First, today's high oil prices are not as high in real terms as the prices in the 1970s and have risen more slowly, giving time for adaptation. Secondly, our economies are more adaptable. In particular, labour markets have become much more flexible. Thirdly, our economies are more energy efficient: for example, the United Kingdom uses only half as much energy per unit of output as it did 30 years ago.
	Finally, our economies are less vulnerable. There has been a major shift from industry to services, which are much less energy intensive. Energy consumption as a percentage of gross domestic product is at a historic low and oil as a percentage of total energy use in OECD countries has fallen from over 50 per cent to 40 per cent today.
	All that means that our economic life is less sensitive to high oil prices than it used to be. The European Commission has estimated that the high recent oil prices are barely shaving economic growth in the eurozone and their effect on inflation is negligible. The situation is of course different in the oil-importing developing world, which on average uses twice as much oil per unit of output as the OECD countries; those countries are indeed vulnerable to rising prices.
	In conclusion, let me come clean on the question of whether I am an optimist or pessimist. I place myself squarely in the optimistic camp, not only because I am not by nature a hoarder but because I have a great belief in human inventiveness and adaptability. Oil will not lead us into disaster unless governments are incredibly stupid, which is not impossible but fortunately not to be relied on.
	There will have to be changes in our habits of life—I venture to suggest that the era of cheap air travel may be drawing to a close—but they will not be catastrophic. I have already referred to the decline in oil as a percentage of energy use. The fastest-growing alternative energy sources are nuclear and natural gas. Despite many worries, nuclear energy is growing in importance as a clean alternative to fossil fuels and use of gas is increasing as the result of the development of production of liquid natural gas.
	The world is discovering sugar-based fuel such as cane-based ethanol. In Brazil, cars that run on either petrol or ethanol or some combination of the two are already popular and that could spread to countries such as India, which is the second largest sugar producer in the world. Countries such as Britain and America are capable of replacing automotive fossil fuels with hydrogen, which is produced from renewable resources.
	The fact that most of the technologies that save on oil consumption simultaneously reduce the rate of carbon dioxide emissions and thus the rate of global warming gives an additional reason for both governments and the private sector to invest in their production. I particularly draw the attention of Her Majesty's Government to that fact and ask them what they are doing and planning to do to speed up the process of conversion.
	To conclude, oil is still vitally important in the short and medium term, and its importance may be growing because of fear of disruption and the rapid growth in consumption, particularly in China. In the longer term, the age of oil, which replaced the age of coal, may be drawing to a close, as ever-inventive humanity develops and exploits alternative sources of energy.

Lord Newby: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, for introducing such a fascinating debate, although, rather like the noble Lord, Lord Desai, I feel that it may come to be an example of the adage: everything has been said but, as yet, not everyone has said it. I was particularly interested to hear the contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Browne. As environmental issues move up the political agenda, as they undoubtedly will during this Parliament, I hope that we will have the opportunity, increasingly, to have the benefit of the noble Lord's experience as we discuss these issues in your Lordships' House.
	There is obviously agreement that oil prices are relatively high, but not, as it were, disastrously high. They are not at their real-term peak. There is equal agreement on why that is. The principal reason is demand. With the economies of China and India and other countries with very significant populations increasing significantly year-on-year, demand for oil has been unsustainably high. We know that there is a premium in the price. People disagree about how large that is because of security concerns, not least in the Middle East, which are unlikely to diminish in the short to medium term.
	I understand that there is also a minor element in the equation that relates to refinery capacity in some places. If yesterday's Financial Times is to be believed, that has led to some pressure, co-ordinated by the International Energy Agency, to push the G8 at Gleneagles to give tax breaks for new refinery construction. Given the state of the finances and the recent profits made by the oil companies in contrast with the other items on the agenda at Gleneagles, I suspect that that proposal will be quietly dropped. For it to be discussed at the Gleneagles summit would be seen widely by the consuming public as little short of obscene.
	However, it points up a role which has been very significant in energy and environmental policy over the decades; namely, that of the success of the US oil companies in influencing US public policy. We saw once again over the past few days clear evidence of how oil company pressure in the US has helped to scupper any chance of the American Administration signing up to the Kyoto Protocol. The whole question of the lobbying role of American oil companies could form the basis of a debate of its own, but suffice it to say that their influence in the US appears undiminished and, certainly for anyone concerned about our environmental future, deeply depressing.
	I shall look mainly in my contribution at the consequences for the UK economy of the current oil price level and oil prices in general. As other noble Lords have pointed out, fluctuations in the oil price have rather less significant immediate consequences than we feared and saw during the 1970s. Over recent years, we have seen that when on one or two occasions petrol and diesel prices rose quite rapidly, there were immediate political consequences in the form of fuel protests. We did not really see that in the 1970s, but more recently we have seen a process which has led to the Government probably quite sensibly not maintaining the fuel price escalator. But in a week when we are discussing how to constrain traffic congestion, I do not think that the prospect of ongoing high levels of both fuel duty and oil prices more generally is necessarily all bad.
	One of the principal beneficiaries of high oil prices, particularly if those high oil prices do not lead to a significant slowdown in the economy, is the Government. Over the years the Government have been reluctant to give figures for the VAT or duty collected on retail sales of petrol and other oil products, but when prices rise without any significant reduction in demand, government income also rises. Given these sensitivities and the consequences for petrol duty, I am tempted to ask the Minister if he would care to speculate on possible future petrol duty increases in the UK if the oil price remains at or above its current level. But I suspect that he will not care to do so.
	As a result of higher oil prices there have no doubt been large increases in North Sea taxes, royalties and corporation tax levies on oil company profits. Last year the Financial Times calculated those in the order of a number of billions of pounds as the oil price rose. Can the Minister tell the House what would be the consequences for government revenue, compared with the figures in the Red Book, if the oil price remained at between $50 and $55 for the remainder of the financial year? There has been a lot of talk about black holes in the economy. Perhaps this is a ray of sunshine for the Chancellor, one that is an uncovenanted boon to the government coffers.
	On inflation, the rise in the oil price has not been a major factor in recent Monetary Policy Committee decisions. But if we were to see a severe shock that temporarily pushed up the rate of inflation, I hope that the MPC would not respond by raising interest rates significantly, but rather would write to the Chancellor saying that it was a temporary shock which should be met in the short term with flexibility on inflation.
	The noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, in looking at the economic consequences of oil prices, said that he wished we had done the same as Norway and set up a separate fund to deal with North Sea oil revenues. As a young civil servant in the late 1970s, a private secretary, I saw a draft White Paper on this subject cross my desk. I believe that Tony Benn was the Secretary of State for Energy at the time. The draft paper set out the pros and cons of having such a fund. Only one word was set in square brackets, and it was in the final paragraph. The paragraph effectively said that, "Taking everything into consideration, on balance we have decided"—and the in square brackets was the word "not"—"to establish a fund". In the event, the square brackets were taken out. The Treasury won and those oil revenues were not hypothecated. I think that that is possibly rather a pity, at least for some of them.
	So the effect of the oil price rise in the UK has not been dramatic. It is interesting to note that according to the IEA, which last year produced rather high figures for the impact of a rise in the oil price on GDP growth, the effect here on the growth in GDP of a $10 per barrel increase would be about 0.5 per cent of GDP. The figure rose to 0.8 per cent in Asia and to 3 per cent in sub-Saharan Africa because they use oil much less efficiently. Here is another example where poor Africa loses out when there is a general shock to the world economy.
	To conclude, should I be an optimist or a pessimist about the future of oil prices and oil supplies? I am sure that in the longer term oil prices will not subside to the levels we have seen over the past two or three years, a point also made by the noble Lord, Lord Browne. I was reinforced by the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, in my thinking that I am really an optimist on this. However, when the noble Lord, Lord Desai, was so unabashedly cheerful about the prospects for oil, a little light went on. Economics is too gloomy a science to be quite so cheerful. So I have become slightly less cheerful during the course of the debate. For a raft of reasons, the lesson here is that whatever the exact oil price might be and whatever the precise supply levels and constraints, as the world population grows, looking for alternative sources of energy, developing them and putting the money in—whether for hydrogen, wind power or whatever—is a sound policy and one to which we need to give more priority. To coin a phrase, we do indeed need to go beyond petroleum.